Our existential problem is overshoot, and climate change is only one aspect of it, so colling down the planet is not going to save the human race from extinction. When Einstein said human stupidity is infinite, that wasn't hyperbole, he spoke quite accurately.
The fact that humanity, and pretty much all other species on the planet have done better in the past,in warmer periods appears to have gone over your head.. The tide is turning on this bs virtue signalling climate claptrap.... Finally!
Albert was talking about people like you, bruh. I am quite happy with indoor plumbing, laundry machines, HVAC, computers, moon landings, etc. You could join the winning team, the human race, or continue to be a traitor to your own brothers. The choice is yours.
@@kayakMike1000 Well enjoy those fossil fuel treats, and your hubris, while it lasts... These actual scientists are trying to tell you that it won't be for much longer. But you won't listen until it's too late. Millions will die and million of species will go instinct and there's you thinking that this magically won't affect you.
Oh they DO grasp the situation - or they can reasonably be expected to comprehend it given their nearly unlimited access to competent credible information and advice. They must be viewed as Willfully Deliberately Intransigent and oppositional and obstructionist and allied with the cronyCorpiratist kleptocracy as Enemies of the People and of Life itself. They must be held fully responsible, liable, culpable and corrective action taken to mitigate or eliminate their active threat.
Honestly, glad I'm over 60. But I have seven nieces and nephews, mostly in their early twenties. Never mind UK property prices, I've always worried about the world they will see. Let alone their children. Let alone the billion or more vulnerable people. And for what. So that a tiny minority could emit as much as half of humanity. I've one thing to say to them: [expletive deleted].
There’s no big inflection point in 2020 in global reflectivity. That tells me the reduction in shipping sulfates had little to do with earth energy imbalance going from +.5W in 2001 to 1.9W in 2023.
14 of 17 of our earliest models have been accurate, according to a joint survey by NASA, MIT and the University of California, Berkely. See STUDY CONFIRMS MODELS ARE GETTING FUTURE WARMING PROJECTIONS RIGHT
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 just that statement proves the inherent bias in the whole process, they just assume that the cause and effect are known if you stick with that bloodletting, mercury baths, and antacids for ulcers would still be 'the science'
The comments seem to think everything is still possible and will be okay. Wow. You people need to put down the pipe and get a real good look at the reality they were trying to explain. We are SCREWED.
The hardest thing to see is what is in front of your eyes. Goethe The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know. Noam Chomsky It gets harder the more you know. Because the more you find out the uglier everything seems. Frank Zappa Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists. Nikola Tesla
@@andrewtrip8617It's all relative, so my relations tell me....there is barely a hairless ape alive who said that "Life's an illusion and I'm not scared of dying" that would not shit and piss their pants and run a heart beat of 400 if some thug stuck a pistol between their eyes. Humans are soooo deluded in their self appraisal....
The IPCC reports are made of two parts: (1) good science, and (2) and an executive summary. The summary is full of politics and industry. Dr. Hansen's paper goes a long way to offset the distortions in the summary.
Good science is made of accurate repeatable measurement and experimental proofs IPCC science is a mish mash of proxy model and theory with no proofs available .
sry for being picky, I'm not pro-noun police, but it shouldn't be 'man', it should be 'person'. Behind every Clarence Thomas, there's a Gini Thomas. When a discussion is referencing the entire body politic then I don't think the role of such women should be ignored. They are just as spineless and self-serving as any male can be.
our political system isn't top down. unless there is a genuine.... and not at all "Silent"...... majority. top down is more like how the Chinese system works, not Democratic Capitalism. if most Americans oppose genuine carbon reductions, as Donald J. Trump has pointed out, then there will never be a "White House Effect on the Greenhouse Effect" in time... and even today, a good proxie, along with 426 ppmv of Co2 in the atmosphere, is that jet fuel is as cheap as apple juice... even though several hundred million of us 'fly'.
a refunded to everyone carbon tax would have made it a big part of everyman's salary. but it would have busted the airlines just as Donald Trump retorted to Joe Biden in the first 2020 debate when the.... hippy dippy "Global Warming" finally came up that no one in the audience wanted to have to even listen to. how did Joe respond ahead of 2024? record breaking fracking of the last of the tight oil plays, fist bumping a Saudi prince and a Switch to EV's before we run into less and less tight oil while we continue, since the 1970's, to import oil. even if it is now mostly from Canada. duh.
Man I wouldve loved to have met Carl Sagan. Wish we could hear his thoughts and insights on all of this given his love for the rise and fall of civilizations
I really liked the talk, many thanks for this initiative. A question... Should aerosols from ships be emitted again to the atmosphere? Besides the use of "scrubbers" (open cycle) in ships cleans exhaust gases but concentrates pollutants that are released into the sea (heavy metals, etc) facilitating their entrance into the marine food web.
Excellent point I did not know about those heavy metals in scrubbers being dumped in the ocean. However, those aerosols kill 8 million of us per year and make a lot more of us ill with respiratory diseases. I guess the bottom line is "fish don't have health insurance". 🤷♂
Aerosols kill millions. Question is how many would die from starvation if we took away the current aerosol effect over the US Midwest, India and Eastern China. 108F in St Louis in 2012 was with aerosol masking. China may have reduced aerosols but still have a lot of it today.
It's not good to hide real warming with aerosols, since that only gives us a false sense of security. We need to adress the underlying issue, which are GHG emissions, not hide it again. Hopefully it will serve as a wakeup call for humanity.
The effect of aerosols comes from it whitening the top of clouds. If no clouds above you, you get near 0 aerosol effect. What happens in one area, like cooling from aerosols, ends up in the global average calculation. The Arctic is now warming 4 times faster than the global average, but it's calculated in the global average. And what we measure as global warming is the atmosphere. Oceans take in 93,4 of the warming, land, ice and the atmosphere only take up about 2% each. So, 1,5°C is only 2% of the warming. Yeas, that warming has huge impacts on oceanic life as warm layers on the top (stratification) and impairs the upwelling of nutrients in critical areas, which in turn reduces phytoplankton, the basic element of the oceanic food web. Everything is interconnected. More than 59% of the oxygen we breath comes from phytoplankton.
What emergency is that then, exactly? The one where policy change is being based on totally inaccurate climate computer models? Who on earth would ever have thought that it would be almost impossible to model the earth's horrendously complex climate on a fooking computer!
commonly understood as the beginning of the industrial age - aka coal burning at scale - and so-called little ice was extremely localizes to part of north America and not remotely global and also allegedly from 1300 to 1850@@DrSmooth2000
@@mark-b5p6h 1700 into 1800s were time European aristocratic Sciences marked glaciers (no walkie talked or signal flares no helicopter rescue. Insane guys to trapse about measuring) in NorthAm and Europe. Not many glaciers at all in antipode hemisphere... must be some in Chile Argentina as approach pole. Also the start of systematic recorded measurements were same guys in NorthAm and Europe. I'll have to find metric that shows 1750 was watershed in coal use. Wonder if century at that pace was required to end LiA a century later? Obviously overshot the mark in 1930s Warm Period.
Merci beaucoup. I think James Hanson misspoke about the emissions, but he told the truth. He said to Leon that there was a clear increase in radiation since 2010, when the sulphur was decreased in 2020. But Jim Massa had made a comment on that graph and said that the increases were locked in since at least 1995. There should have been more discussion about Deep Ocean Heat, since this is probably the major driver. Hanson also made an old comment about the energy contained in petroleum. But with our techniques of fracking and tarsanding, most of the energy in fossil fuels is used to get more fossil fuels, since it has become an energy intensive resource, and has bankrupted our economy and created this crisis. I was disappointed that no one talked about the only carbon capture technique we have that could work today...global hemp and bamboo planting. Look at my interview on Windyday Concept on the Environmental Coffeehouse.
About your CO2 capture, 2 things 1- you would need more cultivable land that is accessible (it's been calculated) 2- Pulling CO2 of the the atmosphere implies the CO2 in the ocean that causes ocean acidification, will also be drawn out. Gases in the air, like O2, CO2 are in a sort of pressure equilibrium state. All the dissolved O2 used for life in the ocean comes from the O2 on the atmosphere. Fish can't extract O2 from H2O, the chemical bound is way too strong.
Said critical juncture was several decades ago. We're way past that now. Too much inertia in the system. We're not going to change our ways anyway - it is to be business as usual, just as has been in that time since.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ We *can't* change our ways. There simply are no combination of changes that will save us from dying off without killing most of us currently alive. "Technology" has become the modern form of Alchemy; it's magical thinking and extremely ironic as it is our accelerated march towards technology that has brought our downfall.
What a load of shite! You seriously think that co2 going from 0.0280% pre industrial revolution to 0.0420% currently constitutes a critical juncture. You're off your nuts! Time to wake up to that fact!
Hansen called it a Faustian Bargain, but much of humanity doesn’t even receive benefits, so a bargain is really not accurate. It is more akin to assault. The major implication is the legitimacy of the current economic system, which distributes enormous gains to relatively few, by concealing and ignoring the incredible harms necessary for that growth. This arrangement should be familiar to those of us who already abhor how economic models are used to guide and justify the reconfiguration of social reality for the benefit of the wealthiest. That climate scientists compromise their integrity by ignoring empirical evidence when it does not match integrated assessments models of climate change is disturbing, but perhaps not surprising. Unfortunately, the earth system will not prove as resilient and flexible as the human spirit. This time it is the economic model that will need to be changed, or it will be shattered when reality comes crashing down on it. Is that what we are waiting for?
@33:10 increase in solar photovoltaic deployment in the next decade exceeding the increase over the past three decades seems quite plausible to me: if you look at e.g. BNEF solar PV production statistics for the recent past. Production rate is doubling every 1 year to 18 months or so, and prices continue to fall. Total global cumulative installed capacity reached 1TW in early 2022. A further 0.4 TW was added in 2023 alone.
Thank you for sharing this discussion about the findings of the recent paper about global warming in the pipeline. It appears that we are not going to reduce fossil fuel combustion fast enough to have a meaningful impact on the Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI). Hansen stated that we need to cool the planet and there simply does not appear to be any alternative to some form of solar radiation management (SRM) in the short term while we tackle greenhouse gas emissions. I note that in the paper by Hansen et al. only two approaches to SRM are mentioned; stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. It would be good to have some critical discussion about other approaches to cooling the planet like Dr. Ye Tao's MEER project (using arrays of ground based mirrors to reflect sunlight). Any meaningful SRM is going to require global governance so the sooner we can launch a global approach to this challenge to cool the earth using SRM the better our chances of reducing EEI and saving the Earth's cooling systems (Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets). SRM and reduction in CO2 emissions have to be implemented hand in hand.
You ridiculously fixated on not running the meeting overtime, on extremely important news, you cut the meeting off when the media is trying to get the fullness of the message. Dumb.
@@chrismullin8304 surviving without 95% of stuff woukd be the end of how our economic system works. What you going to replace free market capitalism with, that is a better model than what we've already got? Bearing in mind that free market capitalism has hauled 100' of millions out of abject poverty!. Also bearing in mind that the "elites" pushing this climate crisis claptrap also stand to gain huge amounts from toppling the current system. Or is that just a conspiracy theory.... Did I dream the 3 trillion going up the chain during covid lockdowns, and the businesses failing and being bought up by the big boys!?
@@VoytekBereza what's that got to do with anything? If you were in a new religious cult, would you have the ability to see it, or would you simply be swept along engaging with virtue signalling nonsense? Name me three things that constitute a religious cult, then apply that to the climate cult that you're part of. You're suggesting with your ridiculous comment that there's a climate crisis with co2 at 0.0420%.... Nah nothing culty about that, right! 🤣
Yeah shame about those pesky satellites reporting a greening of the planet, because of slightly higher co2 levels! Also a terrible shame that crop yields are up globally, partly because of slightly higher co2 levels too, I guess. Were these facts mentioned in this video? I doubt it. Personally, I can't bring myself to listen to the climate cult nonsense!
@@wmanadeau7860the fact that co2 was between 6000-8000ppm back in the Cambrian period (which saw the biggest explosion of life the planet has ever seen),and we're currently at a gnats fart level of 420ppm,appears to gone over the top of your head!
Thank you to Dr Hansen and to Jeffrey Sachs for bringing this clear explanation to the public and the media. It’s up to all of us to push our governments to act rationally. We are out of time.
I don't mind 10 minutes after the hour, and I'm sure others wouldn't. Talk on unheralded saviours of the planet and civilisation. Those that mind can drop by the wayside. Those that are in it for the long haul would die on this rock. (Let's call that, 'literally')
So if I understand this correctly with a doubling of the energy imbalance (Solar Energy Received Vs Reflected) the energy imbalance will accelerate climate change 5x relative to the burning of Fossil Fuels in the comparative period. If that is correct shouldn't we concentrates all efforts on the energy imbalance and Fossils Fuels are just a part of that equation. We must surely replace the missing harmful aerosols ( like Sulphur that were helping with the energy imbalance) with less harmful aerosols or massive amounts of solar reflectors place on every practical.
If we want to get back to the linear and relatively slow climate change we were experiencing in 2001, we need to put the earth back to where it was in 2001. That means unpaving the roads, refreezing the ice we lost, putting forests back that we bulldozed.......
@@mrpaul5726 What's even more hilarious, is it's not like brace for impact for a short while as we wait for it to blow over, but brace for, and endure impact forever, because the situation simply isn't going to go away in any time span relevant to human lives.
My God this is such eye awakening Future for all living on our planet let alone our Childrens future! We must take Hold and prepare for challenging times but also a better reason to bring sustainable communities even more empowering togetherness 🕊🌳🌏❤️
If you believe that there's an issue with the climate because co2 has gone from 0.0280% pre industrial revolution to 0.0420% currently, for a single solitary second, them perhaps may I suggest you go see a psychiatrist?
@@everythingmatters6308 well what's not to enjoy by trolling you lot. You make it so easy for me to destroy your doom and gloom views! Maybe I should just let you carry on terrifying kids that they have no future!?
There is so much complexity here; for example AI systems dividing humanity into online echo chambers is a factor that leads to a large percentage of the population having a better or worse picture of things than reality, and this will affect voting. Billions of variables feed into the climate system and many we will be utterly unaware of . At this point I am coming to terms with the optimistic viewpoint being; that we get machine intelligence standing on it's own 2 feet before we terraform Earth to suit bacteria only.
It reminds me of a doctor giving a patient a terminal diagnosis, but in this case it is not about one person, but about the whole of humanity and nature. Humanity's destiny will thus be fulfilled in the coming decades. Nothing will be the same. This documentary should have been made into a prime time TV programme, but it won't be, because then today's powerful and extremely wealthy might fear that the ensuing riots will lead them to the same fate as Mussolini. But it will happen eventually anyway, just later.
I wish it would be longer. They're duscussing very important topics concerning the whole planet, but host is always rushing them due to the lack of time.
@@ravenken Presentation is Full of Shyte! CO2 is not the temperature control! CO2 has been proven that it rises to the edge of the air envelope of Earth, and sends a lot of RED light off into deep space! 1: The Sun is not getting any hotter since CO2 levels of the dino era! 2: The Earth is recovering from an Ice age! 3: The only threat to life in the trapped methane. (And that can be fixed by harvesting, and burning it!) 4: We need more CO2 to make plants grow faster, to feed the Billions of people in this world!
I have no way of gauging your intelligence Mr Cheadle, but to describe the contents of this presentation in the way you do, I find breathtaking. You are a fine example of why humanity, comprising the most intelligent species on Earth, will destroy themselves like Lemmings.
@@andrewcheadle948 yeah you can suggest it, and then we can all dismiss your claim as being totally devoid of evidence that it is lol. What do you expect people to take you at your word and just assume you're right? Is this grade 3?
How great to see that Songnae High School offers a unique and transformative learning experience for students. Songnae is immersing students in a holistic curriculum that not only imparts academic knowledge but also instills a profound sense of environmental consciousness. This distinctive approach encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and a strong sense of responsibility for the environment!
Fall-out shelters were in demand after the horrors of the atomic bomb in 1945. During the paranoia that followed, there were instructions put out by the gov. on building all kinds of shelters even in an emergency. Old science magazines have very creative ideas. Underground or underwater is our future habitat if mankind tries to survive. The whole family can dig, and use the dirt to berm up around the house. Life can adapt IF we start now in a direction of adaptation. Drinking water is the key to survival. This will be humanity's most challenging adventure yet. Best of luck to everyone, remember the Golden Rule, and never dig where the seas are apt to rise.
It seems geoengineering, once called the option of last resort due to inherent risks, is our only option left. In the meantime I hope we can bring those responsible for the denial movement to justice.
This simplest option is to inform people of the risk and rapidly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. No point geoengineering while we continue to allow fossil fuels to force warming.
@@mpecresidentinform people! That's all the "elites" pushing this shite, have done over the last couple of decades. We're not going to rapidly reduce fossil fuels are we. Particularly China and India! Maybe you should rapidly reduce your use of your fossil fuel created and powered electronic device, and cease going on youtube whose energy consumption has gone up year on year, if you're that concerned about it!
Would be interesting to hear the many opposing views from top physicists and mathematicians rather than scientists from the CO2 club. Please consider cui bono.
Don't worry, those that are loudest now in their climate change denial, are auditioning on the internet now for a vengeful future, who will be casting around for the role of scapegoat. There will be plenty of choices for roles that may seem a bit medieval today.
Intriguing. The concept of energy imbalance is indeed central to understanding climate change, as it directly influences the warming of the atmosphere and oceans. However, the complexity of feedback loops such as those involving cloud cover, ice-albedo, and carbon cycle dynamics-along with the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems adds significant uncertainty to predictions. There is a climate crisis threatening the sixth great extinction but the rate of that looming catastrophe is a little unclear
Is that where all the world's "elites" fly in on their private jets, then agree that the oceans are boiling, before arranging more theft of our money, before flying back to their mansions!? Yeah that will be it.
the increasing gravitation towards geo engineering makes me really uneasy. it should be treated as a begrudgingly applied last ditch effort, rather than anything we should look towards in excitement/anticipation. we would practically have to geongineer forever, unless we want to re-create Venus
@@grindupBaker lolol Who are you pretending to be ? Confucius? Was that piss poor attempt at smart ass but weak minded philosophy, supposed to be and insult ?
@@grindupBaker oh hunny lol it’s absolutely been happening (documented by the gov all you have to do is not be lazy and look in the archives and you’ll find it) since the 50’s I just wasn’t 100% sure which year in the 50’s which it started. But good job on the arrogance-intelligence petty a$$ comment
This is great. But science guys suck at debate. Say, “we’re out of time and options. Aerosols are all we’ve got at this point…[ad homonyms omitted].” Do NOT say, “…one stupid action begets another! We’re already doing climate engineering by accident.” 🙄 The latter is surely a more satisfying implied insult, but it leaves the opposition too much rope. We have no more time for witty remarks.
if developing nations are not going to wean off of fossil fuels (sure, what right do developed nations who gained their status through fossil fuel infrastructure have to deny them the same), then developed nations (the UNITED STATES), need to take accountability and do everything in their power to accelerate the renewable transition ten-fold. not through magical technologies like CCUS, DAC, and BECCS; but existing and proven technology. we are absolutely screwed if these oil conglomerates retain the lobbying power they currently have. if 1.5 is truly dead, we are presiding in the most important moment of time in human history. this is quite literally the most definitive moment in the trajectory of all life on earth.
Ross Mckitrick, where are you? models here models there models everywhere , They get it wrong as error bars are so wide they cover all of the temperature increase since 1880. they can’t compute cloud cover in 100 kilometres squares but requires 10km squares, as clouds are so fleeting would have to be x 10 000 more computer data
So what I am hearing is that the model's previously used may have error factors because of the lack of aerosols. Now you are saying aerosols are a cause primarily from shipping? What about volcanoes. Science is about data. How come all charts are covering just 20 years some being 60 years. Come on guys. What are going to blame next to try and justify an incorrect thesis
I wish they went more into IMO regulations; the implication being GHG emissions need to be coupled with sulfur emissions decreases, and follow the same, rapid rate; people can't be allowed to misunderstand the data and come to the conclusion that sulfur emissions are actually good and aerosols will save us all.
What we need is a proposal that smoothly facilitates the transition from fossil fuels to other alternatives. You cannot just all of a sudden raise the cost of fossil fuels when there is no plan or viable options for transition to less polluting options. If the climate intelligentsia doesn’t start coming up with a feasible plan, it will continue to be labeled as climate alarmists and as the men and women who cry wolf. If things are as dire as you claim, why isn’t there a huge campaign for nuclear energy? If you are a climate scientist that must be part of your agenda as it is the only viable technology we have today that is not carbon emitting. Windmills and solar panels are not viable as wide ranging power replacements. Again, without suggesting viable energy replacements for fossil fuels you will not be taken seriously by the majority public. People are not stupid and will do their research if pushed economically. Anyone doing their research knows that the idea of electric cars as a 100% replacement for fossil fuel powered cars is a farce and could be called a scam when the mining required is morally criminal and the fact that 70% of power plants are fossil fuel based and would have to be greatly expanded to accommodate the additional charging requirements created by so many EV’s.
"Why isn't there a big campaign for nuclear energy?" Because of NIMBYs. Fears of another Chernobyl or Fukushima and the massive expense of getting a new nuclear plant up to speed are the two main stumbling blocks. "Windmills and solar panels are not viable as wide ranging power replacements. " A joint study by the University of California at Berkeley, with contributions from Caltech, the Carnegie Institution of Science and Tshinghua University in China disagree. According to their assessments, industrialized countries can reliably tap 80-90% of their power from wind, solar and battery back-up alone and can do so without raising consumer bills. "Electric cars are a farce." The electricity required to drive 15,000 miles per year in a compact electric vehicle costs an average of $546, while the amount of gas required to drive the same distance costs $1,255 (or 130%) more in an equivalent size gas car, according to AAA. (See TRUE COST of ELECTRIC VEHICLES) Electric cars cost $330 per year less in maintenance, according to AAA, or $3300 less over ten years. The average owner can save up to $6000 over an EV's lifespan, according to Consumer Reports. According to Autoinsurance EZ, using figures from the National Transportation Safety Board, EVs are 10 times LESS LIKELY to experience a fire than a gasoline car. EVs' rollover rate is significantly lower than gasoline cars, due to the heavy battery's low center of gravity. It's part of the reason EVs have a 40% LESS death and injury rate than equivalent gasoline cars. EVs front end crash test results place them with the very safest luxury gasoline cars. Tax credits up to $7500. EVs have instant torque, allowing you to get onto the highway far quicker than an equivalent gas car. EVs cost more upfront but save money in the long run. However, EVs should reach price parity with gas cars as the industry continues to scale up. In China, EVs are already cheaper than gasoline cars. LEVELIZED COST OF BUILDING AND RUNNING A NEW POWER PLANT IN DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT HOUR SOLAR: $60 WIND: $50 GAS: $70 COAL: $117 NUCLEAR: $180 2023 FIGURES BY LAZARD
The naysayers take appears to be captain of Titanic arguing about what time the ship will hit the iceberg. Hansen's take is let's grab the helm and redirect the ship ASAP
Reversible direct air capture is expensive and inefficient. Enhanced weathering of olivines could capture CO2 emissions for about a trillion dollars, less than one-fifth of what David Keith is proposing. There is a growing literature on enhanced weathering.
Humanity has never needed to be united so much for the same purpose, but the international situation is terrible and does not favor cooperation between countries to try to stop the worst scenarios of global warming. It's like a game of chess where we already know who will win many moves before the end.
we're the first with our co2 emissions 100 times faster than any time on Earth in the past 500 million years - and we could easily cause "biological annihilation" - so Nature will have to start over - maybe in another 500 million years.
@@ceeemm1901 yeah we are on another level, some species overpopulate and deplete their own food supplies and pollute it like we do: locusts, wolves, elephants, goats, rabbits, pigs... but none of those threaten all life on earth like we do with nukes & pollution
Where is the scientific literature that demonstrates what the right temperature for Earth is? Where is the scientific literature that demonstrates the optimal CO2 levels ? All global climate models exaggerated the temperature rise by 2 -3X. Satellite and weather balloon observations proved that only the most conservative models (Russian NM5) made more faithful predictions. The temperatures were higher than today during Holocene optimum, the Bronze Roman and Medieval warming periods. There was no anthropogenic CO2 back then therefore CO2 is not the sole driver of temperature. Water vapor is contributing 70% to the Greenhouse phenomenon. Doubling CO2 will only decrease the flux of outgoing radiation by 1%. CO2 is a critical nutrition for plants, forests and food crops which now grow more efficiently greening the Earth and increasing food production. Spending 100s of Trillions to reduce CO2 emissions in the West (30%) while allowing the rest of the emitters continue contributing 70% of the CO2 is the mathematical definition of insane stupidity.
:what the right temperature for Earth". Obviously, a temperature CHANGE that wipes out most Life on Earth is pretty darn good but a temperature CHANGE that ONLY wipes out all @drTAMU-Ts on Earth and leaves all other Life all happy & smiling is PERFECT. This is so obvious that the question is unnecessary.
Forests proceeds civilisation, deserts follow. Of all the lands we see in flood the waters are carrying away topsoil and soil nutrients. We as a species have had 10,000 years of relative weather stability. The overshoot of the world's carrying capacity has been breached and we the wealth aquisition addicts are stealing from tomorrow to live high on that lucre as proof of our being. I am reminded of a baby and his (operative) pacifier. Meanwhile countries made poor by capitalisms excesses have to feel the desperate and oppressive weight that inequality and hypocracy brings.
Thanks for offering further evidence that this has never been about the environment and is simply another anti capitalist movement in the guise of saving the planet. No country on this planet has ever been "made poor by capitalisms excesses". And what is your solution to a world of plenty, depravation of course.
I noticed a number of stark differences between data from Northern and Southern Hemispheres'. I am very interested in understanding the implications of these differences going forward. I live on 45 degrees South so I feel my experience of climate changes is very different from people living north of the equator. Have at it people. I look forward to any insights this community may provide.
Speaking from 43° north. Not much has changed over the last 30 years. We still have all four seasons. Nothing in our area has gone extinct, though there are a few invasive species, like stink bugs and mustard grass.
I live near 40 °N. Falls and winters have the most noticeable changes here. I'll stick to winters... We get much less snow and extreme cold. 30+ years ago, we would get a solid 3 weeks of -40°Cs and it was generally colder. We seldom go down to -30°C and only for short periods, no more than a week. Less snow probably has to do with changes in wind patterns. The big snowstorms seldom make it here, and we often get rain in the winter since 2012 or so. It seems to be a lot more cloudy, but this area is one that gets most average precipitation in Canada. Some say it has to do with all the hydro dams up here. Could be... Oh, and they also do cloud seeding to keep water levels up in those dams. They's been doing it since the 60's according to news outlets. ✌ P.S. The Arctic circle is now warming 4 times faster than global average.I think that may explain a lot of what's going on around there. It begins only 6° North of here.
The graph shown at 4mins provides sufficient info to blow the debate wide open - now class, what really causes CO2 levels to rise and fall! A recent paper confirms this on a shorter timescale
No it doesn't. "@michaelharrison9340" == Babbler of total drivel of the highest order == Some bod with ZERO interest in this science who never studied ANY of it == a totally dishonest creature of the highest order.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ you people are insane If we did nothing beyond Paris, nothing, then race between plants taking in the co2 vs their darkening albedo If albedo wins out before Y3K and start Hothouse cycle we get Miocene. Planetary jungle. That's worst case. A lot more rain forest You'd nuke us instead
"The most important "tipping point"..." is the worldwide global ice melt: 1,200,000,000,000,000 (1.2 trillion) tons of melting ice annually. Hansen is just another "expert" to be taken with a gram of ice. A volcanic eruption may have a slight cooling effect, but it's the 8 B tons of coal annually, and the 100 M barrels of oil we burn a day that are producing the heat, with a secondary contribution from "the greenhouse effect".
wot a lot of crap if i remember before year 2 thousond we in australia we were all told we going to run out of oil and we need to go bi o fule and run our cars on gas and use cooking gas in our houses / then wen the year 2000 came around if i remember we were told the world was going to end all our computers and atms would stop plains were going to fall out of the sky / then we were told we were going to die of thurst so our goverment spent a fourtune on a de sall plant turning salt water into fresh never been used because all our dams are so full of drinking water so that means climate change fill all our dams up with drinking water / wear i live lake elden the so called experts said that because of climate change no one will ever see the dam full in our life time well well climate change must of fixed that because its so full few months ago they had to realese water down the spill way it was that full and all theese so called experts just want to scare every one into voting green / if all theese experts so worried they should stop driving a car stop usinging there lap tops phones flying watching tv no fire works on new years eve no bbqs give up any kind of smoking stop all kind of fule reduction burns stop building high rises in the city theses climate experts are all about scaring every one no one knows wot going to happen in 50 years time
None of the dire predictions of the past came true, my friend, because we took pre-emptive action to stop them from happening. Innovations in drilling, deep-sea drilling and fracking have brought us more oil and gas. The world also spent billions on mitigating the Y2K disaster BEFORE IT HAPPENED. (And nobody in science said the world would end, by the way; that's your own hyperbole.). While you may have adequate water now, you may not in the future. Many places in the world have suffered devastating droughts, and these are increasing in intensity and duration, according to the IPCC. Back in the 1960s, America had some of the worst air pollution in the world. Millions needlessly suffered from lung and heart disease and premature deaths. There were dire predictions of even more premature deaths in the future. The pollution was so bad it actually dimmed the sun, which dropped global temperature slightly. Although big industry fought it tooth and nail, we acted on the dire predictions of the day and passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, one of the most powerful pieces of legislation ever created in the U.S. By the end of the decade, the skies cleared, and we ended up saving an estimated $22 trillion in health care costs, according to estimates by the EPA. Dire predictions averted. BECAUSE WE ACTED.
As a physicist, this seems very worrying to me, but not unexpected. I always thought that the particulates were a big effect that we had to worry about. This presentation is quite persuasive. It could be a little pessimistic but that's what I would use to protect ourselves. I have to ask, if particulates are a big effect, shouldn't we consider putting "safe" particulates into the atmosphere to replace the sulphur we are reducing, at least as a temporary measure. It seems like an emergency.
Well, IPCC AR5 2013 had -1.41 w/m**2 of aerosol forcing and the total warming forcing is 4.1 w/m**2 so -1.4 w/m**2 certainly wasn't chump change at 34% of GHG forcing masked. The scientific consensus NEVER DID state that aerosol masking was chump change. The IPCC AR reports had like the -1.4 I mentioned and Jim says it's almost certainly 1.5 to 2.0 instead so it's ALWAYS BEEN a non-negligible but moderate "disagreement" (uncertainty).
Fabricland sell bolts of fabric for reasonable prices. Could we not cover the Antarctic glaciers with fabric the same way that Europeans are covering their mountain glacier ranges? Just asking?
Lots of data. For myself the slides data often came & went too fast to absorb the detail, whilst trying to follow the spoken narrative at the same time. Maybe cognitive decline, but had to use the pause button! The presentation clearly makes its case for global warming termination shock from reducing atmospheric sulfur emissions, with its consequent reduction in global cooling effects. The Hunga Tora eruption didn't help by ejecting more greenhouse gases into the stratosphere in the form of water vapor. Why can't we rapidly offset this loss of sulfur aerosol cooling effect by fast-tracking "marine cloud brightening" (MCB) specialist seagoing vessels (perhaps defunct oil rigs too)? Such injection of non-toxic salt spray (at the right particles size) into low level cumulus cloud does not have the possible unintended consequences of injecting sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere. Too little too late is no antidote to faster than expected.
“An Objective Bayesian Improved Approach for Applying Optimal Fingerprint Techniques to Estimate Climate Sensitivity.” by Nic Lewis gives an ECS between 1.2 and 2.2 degrees C with a best estimate of 1.6C. Hanson claims 4.8C ECS but he doesnt disclose where he got the values for his forcings; GHG forcing of 2.25 Wm2 for a change of 100ppm ? where does the albedo forcing figure come from ?
The bottom line: fossil fuel energy is about to get a whole lot more expensive. If you haven't been paying attention, and are dependent on fossil fuel energy for your lifestyle and your investment returns, your lifestyle is about to take a digger. And if you think this is nonsense, consider that even Republicans at this point are thinking about a carbon border adjustment tariff, which is one step away from a universal carbon tax, which our trading partners will insist on, once the tariffs come into effect.
Dear Jim Hansen, you showed the graph coming from ice core data that documents clearly the well known fact that CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE CHANGE. But why don’t you mention and explain this fact. Why do you expect all people all of the time to „believe“ that „we have to cool the planet“? The hubris that goes along with this absurd demand is breathtaking. BTW the melting of the West Antarctic ice shield - when it occurs - will happen because of the volcanoes underneath and not because of burning „fossil“ fuels in the northern hemisphere.
You've been duped by cherry picking. Earth's orbit around the sun is not fixed. It varies in its distance from the sun (eccentricity), the angle of the earth's rotation (obliquity)and the earth's wobble (precession). You can google "the Milankovitch cycles" for more info. Isn't science fascinating? The Milankovitch cycles drive the ice ages but his takes thousands of years and their effect is too weak to cause the shifts between glacials and interglacials on their own. Ice cores show us quite clearly that as orbital changes start the warm up phase after an ice age, ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Of course many prominent "deniers " try to cherry pick this information and claim CO2 follows temperature change and thus cannot be a driver but the science is clear.
"melting of the West Antarctic ice shield - when it occurs - will happen because of the volcanoes underneath" == Breathtakingly ignorant total rubbish merely Parroted by an entity with a brain equalling that of a parrot.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Today's CO2 is LEADING temperature rise, not the other way around. We needed no help from Milankovitch Cycles to initiate warming as the earth did in the past.
@jjsr7861 As I correctly stated before your "you would have a circular causation/effect relationship - temperature cause rising CO2, rising CO2 causes temperature to rise! You end up with a perpetual motion machine!" is incorrect drivel.
Why is all the anti-fossil fuel effort focussed on the West. Why is Stop Oil demonstrating here. Why oil. Germany does not seem to have gotten the message and is now burning more lignite coal rather than relatively clean Russian natural gas. But Europe is not so important in the grand scheme of burning things as the key burners of fossil fuels are in Asia. Anything the the USA or Europe does now pales into insignificance. Irrespective of the questionable CO2 science, I suspect this whole AGW religion was started as an exercise to retain our dominant economic position and benefit some second rate academic careers.
So thousands of PhD-level climate scientists around the world have all been in cahoots with over 2500 scientific institutions from around the world to publish the over 350,000 climate studies in existence just to benefit someone's second-rate academic career?
Well, goodbye, that was fun when that lasted. I'm 40, I was thinking not so far ago that I could reach 60 without too much disturbance. Now, I can't even figure another quiet 10 years, before very serious consequences of nascent geopolitical instability (food production , regional conflits, etc) occur and reverberate even in western economies. There is already a lot of weak noise socially speaking when we are just maintaining a 0-0.5% growth ; I bet this will unravel rather quickly. I'm French and work in building engeneering. Our thermal building code is touted as the most advanced in Europe (well if you discount the passivehaus approach), and yet it is so out of pace and touch with this reality... We are very strongly incited not to actively cool out new buildings, and yet everybody is rushing to erect wooden buildings with no termal inertia. We already see the limit of this in schools, colleges, etc when we have heatwaves in june and september. All new individual dwellings in 2030 should be build mainly with wood. That's insane and depressing to daily see that most of our clients and the architects have no clue. Well, they begin to understand. I heard an architect say one month ago "I don't know what to do anymore".
Why not mandate the burning of high sulfur bunker fuels, when ships are not near a coast, and get that aerosol effect working for us again? It's a delaying tactic, and one with costs, but not costs as high as direct CO2 extraction, and certainly not 115 to 230 trillion dollars.
Interesting! The decrease in cooling from aerosols are many times bigger than the "insulation" from increased CO2? Did I understand that correctly? 1W/m2 vs 0.03W/m2? Whats the solar influx? 3.5W/m2? If I understood this correctly, we should refocus from CO2 to albedo, right? Cool the planet! Dim the atmosphere! Geoenginering! This is new understanding for me.
Because then we have an air quality issue and more premature deaths from heart and lung diseases. Aerosol pollution is why we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970.
Hansen says: "And we'll soon find out.. that we have an acceleration in the global warming rate.". Sure enough, 15 days after this presentation the global temperature exceeded 2 degrees of warming over preindustrial for the first time.
Brings to mind Hansen's mid-range predictions turned out to be spot on; he was only claimed to make "silly dire predictions" by political media. Easy to find, check it out. In one case he was asked, off the cuff, what would happen if CO2 were suddenly to double which is a ridiculous counterfactual. But somehow the substance of the question is always omitted from accounts of his answer. No lack of high-impact science journals that show how much Mann's and Hansen's findings have been corroborated and aren't even controversial now. We still see to this day political activists telling us Mann and Hansen are conmen and how the anti-science right-wing has made them bogeymen. Same old same old from them misrepresenting their achievements and turning them into strawmen.
@@oller7113 If you could refute that November 17, 2023 was the first day in which the global temperature exceeded 2°C above pre-industrial levels, you will be the next rock star of applied physics. You can't refute that the weather balloons, weather stations, radars, ships and Argo floats, and satellites have been used improperly to measure. You can't demonstrate a failure of measurement.
@@rps1689 I have been listening to several scientists who all have in common the notion that the measurements are flawed because more and none of them are done in a hot environment like city centres which of course are being more and more relevant in these regards. I have no wish to be a rock star (if it doesn´t include groupies of course, lol ).
Seems to me the chart at 5.08 indicates temperature moved ahead of CO2 and declined before CO2. The current Holocene doesn't really look any different to the Eemian. Seen longer term charts like this and it does seem a cyclical rise and fall is a thing. Then at 48.15 the global energy added to the system is 60 times greater than total global energy consumption. Surely that means our energy production has a minimal effect? With Russia attacking Ukraine, China threatening all and sundry the chances of global co-operation is minimal. I hope fusion power comes into reality because no way are people going to want to live with less power.
A joint study by UC Berkeley, Caltech, the Carnegie Institution of Science and Tsinghua University in China finds that industrialized nations can power themselves 85-90% of the time with a combination of wind, solar and battery back-up and can do so cheaper than with fossil fuels. I'm not sure why you believe we'd all have to do with less power. The Milankovitch Cycles that initiated our interglacial period are all in COOLING phases now, and we should, in fact, be cooling ever so slightly, not warming.
Interesting but it is developing countries that are going to need a lot more power and there is only so much production of solar panels and wind turbines. Despite all the pros for renewables we still find lots of coal power plants being chosen (I think China is adding 43)? By the way I have solar panels and in winter they are pretty negligible for power production. I estimate it is about a 11 year payback financially. So considering the CO2 involved in manufacture longevity is very important - and that is a key factor with renewables - how long will they last? How well are they built? I take your point re Milankovitch but perhaps the cooling has been delayed due to our emissions - but that doesn't mean cooling will not occur?
@@rovert1284 I'm sure you know all this already, but for those who don't, rooftop solar and solar farms are two different beasts entirely. Solar farms are located for maximum solar exposure. Rooftop solar may or may not be situated in such plum locations. Solar panels offset the CO2 produced in their manufacture within 2 years. Solar panels are guaranteed to last 20 years but most last longer than that, although with slight degradations of performance over time. Milankovitch cooling without our emissions would have been on par with about a tenth of a degree every century, so that isn't something that we need to worry about. And with our emissions, a new reglaciation isn't going to happen for tens of thousands of years. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
There are a significant number of holes in the arguments presented. The most glaring is trying to use aerosol effect on climate...as he points out, this is extremely complex, chaotic, and almost impossible to predict, hence the reason that most models don't match real world data. "We are all in the same boat, and if we don't work together, we will all sink together." We will only sink together if the boat is sinking, and there is no evidence of that in anything he presents...and a 12 month average is not climate...as the anthropogenic climate change cult member like to say, it is weather...not worth the time to watch it.
in summary, it took a team 7-years to 'Fix" the hockey stick that wasn't really broken. i guess the orinal team just got lucky! 😊 Or "The Fix" is in. Good model or bad model you get a hockey stick! You decide.
Our existential problem is overshoot, and climate change is only one aspect of it, so colling down the planet is not going to save the human race from extinction. When Einstein said human stupidity is infinite, that wasn't hyperbole, he spoke quite accurately.
The fact that humanity, and pretty much all other species on the planet have done better in the past,in warmer periods appears to have gone over your head..
The tide is turning on this bs virtue signalling climate claptrap.... Finally!
Albert was talking about people like you, bruh. I am quite happy with indoor plumbing, laundry machines, HVAC, computers, moon landings, etc. You could join the winning team, the human race, or continue to be a traitor to your own brothers. The choice is yours.
@@kayakMike1000 Well enjoy those fossil fuel treats, and your hubris, while it lasts... These actual scientists are trying to tell you that it won't be for much longer. But you won't listen until it's too late. Millions will die and million of species will go instinct and there's you thinking that this magically won't affect you.
Petroleum based Parasitic Plague Phase aka 8.1 BILLION and still greedily growing🥴😵💫
WASF🔥🪦🌎🪦🔥
@@TCRgalaxy you going to offer to reduce the population!, starting with youreself?
No, you're not are you.
Thank you all so very much for these reports. So sad that world ‘leaders’ and salon ‘scientists’ unable to grasp the situation
Oh they DO grasp the situation - or they can reasonably be expected to comprehend it given their nearly unlimited access to competent credible information and advice.
They must be viewed as Willfully Deliberately Intransigent and oppositional and obstructionist and allied with the cronyCorpiratist kleptocracy as Enemies of the People and of Life itself.
They must be held fully responsible, liable, culpable and corrective action taken to mitigate or eliminate their active threat.
Honestly, glad I'm over 60.
But I have seven nieces and nephews, mostly in their early twenties.
Never mind UK property prices, I've always worried about the world they will see.
Let alone their children. Let alone the billion or more vulnerable people.
And for what. So that a tiny minority could emit as much as half of humanity.
I've one thing to say to them: [expletive deleted].
Oh Shit!!!!😮
Fair comment. Not too wordy and fits the situation. 😂
There’s no big inflection point in 2020 in global reflectivity. That tells me the reduction in shipping sulfates had little to do with earth energy imbalance going from +.5W in 2001 to 1.9W in 2023.
Aerosols/sulfates/everything does have a lifetime in the atmosphere
nasa dude had some crazy charts. el nino causing the last cross makes me wonder what happens next year.
Models models models ...
Not reality.
14 of 17 of our earliest models have been accurate, according to a joint survey by NASA, MIT and the University of California, Berkely. See STUDY CONFIRMS MODELS ARE GETTING FUTURE WARMING PROJECTIONS RIGHT
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
just that statement proves the inherent bias in the whole process, they just assume that the cause and effect are known
if you stick with that bloodletting, mercury baths, and antacids for ulcers would still be 'the science'
Hansen is awesome - the energy pouring in has doubled .
Or, at least, the energy retained.
Hansen is a scaremongerer... Simple as that!
Hansen also claimed that Manhatten would get swamped by rising sea levels. He was really wrong then and is probably wrong now.
@@andrewcheadle948you’re just in denial… simple as that!!
no it hasn't. The energy pouring out has halved..
The comments seem to think everything is still possible and will be okay. Wow. You people need to put down the pipe and get a real good look at the reality they were trying to explain. We are SCREWED.
It's funny how the arrogance of "saving the Planet" is the very same human arrogance that got us here in the first place.
The hardest thing to see is what is in front of your eyes.
Goethe
The general population doesn't know what's happening, and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know.
Noam Chomsky
It gets harder the more you know. Because the more you find out the uglier everything seems.
Frank Zappa
Anti-social behavior is a trait of intelligence in a world full of conformists.
Nikola Tesla
You got that right. We been fucked for a LONNNNNG time.
We are only screwed in theory .in practice we have never been doing better .
@@andrewtrip8617It's all relative, so my relations tell me....there is barely a hairless ape alive who said that "Life's an illusion and I'm not scared of dying" that would not shit and piss their pants and run a heart beat of 400 if some thug stuck a pistol between their eyes. Humans are soooo deluded in their self appraisal....
The IPCC reports are made of two parts: (1) good science, and (2) and an executive summary. The summary is full of politics and industry. Dr. Hansen's paper goes a long way to offset the distortions in the summary.
Good science is made of accurate repeatable measurement and experimental proofs IPCC science is a mish mash of proxy model and theory with no proofs available .
Political "leaders": It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
sry for being picky, I'm not pro-noun police, but it shouldn't be 'man', it should be 'person'. Behind every Clarence Thomas, there's a Gini Thomas. When a discussion is referencing the entire body politic then I don't think the role of such women should be ignored. They are just as spineless and self-serving as any male can be.
our political system isn't top down. unless there is a genuine.... and not at all "Silent"...... majority. top down is more like how the Chinese system works, not Democratic Capitalism. if most Americans oppose genuine carbon reductions, as Donald J. Trump has pointed out, then there will never be a "White House Effect on the Greenhouse Effect" in time... and even today, a good proxie, along with 426 ppmv of Co2 in the atmosphere, is that jet fuel is as cheap as apple juice... even though several hundred million of us 'fly'.
a refunded to everyone carbon tax would have made it a big part of everyman's salary. but it would have busted the airlines just as Donald Trump retorted to Joe Biden in the first 2020 debate when the.... hippy dippy "Global Warming" finally came up that no one in the audience wanted to have to even listen to. how did Joe respond ahead of 2024? record breaking fracking of the last of the tight oil plays, fist bumping a Saudi prince and a Switch to EV's before we run into less and less tight oil while we continue, since the 1970's, to import oil. even if it is now mostly from Canada. duh.
Man I wouldve loved to have met Carl Sagan. Wish we could hear his thoughts and insights on all of this given his love for the rise and fall of civilizations
I really liked the talk, many thanks for this initiative. A question... Should aerosols from ships be emitted again to the atmosphere?
Besides the use of "scrubbers" (open cycle) in ships cleans exhaust gases but concentrates pollutants that are released into the sea (heavy metals, etc) facilitating their entrance into the marine food web.
True! Also less Iron so declining of the fertilising effects. Maybe more stable bubbles when using as lubricant.
There is a still problem with burning fossil fuels..... ... this dilemma is called 'Global Dimming'
No, aerosols don't solve the problem they merely mask it.
Excellent point I did not know about those heavy metals in scrubbers being dumped in the ocean.
However, those aerosols kill 8 million of us per year and make a lot more of us ill with respiratory diseases.
I guess the bottom line is "fish don't have health insurance". 🤷♂
Supposed environmentalists calling for more pollution
Aerosols kill millions. Question is how many would die from starvation if we took away the current aerosol effect over the US Midwest, India and Eastern China. 108F in St Louis in 2012 was with aerosol masking. China may have reduced aerosols but still have a lot of it today.
One must split the indoor vs outdoor aerosol numbers because the indoor number (from cooking & heating) is significant
It's not good to hide real warming with aerosols, since that only gives us a false sense of security. We need to adress the underlying issue, which are GHG emissions, not hide it again. Hopefully it will serve as a wakeup call for humanity.
The effect of aerosols comes from it whitening the top of clouds. If no clouds above you, you get near 0 aerosol effect.
What happens in one area, like cooling from aerosols, ends up in the global average calculation.
The Arctic is now warming 4 times faster than the global average, but it's calculated in the global average.
And what we measure as global warming is the atmosphere. Oceans take in 93,4 of the warming, land, ice and the atmosphere only take up about 2% each.
So, 1,5°C is only 2% of the warming.
Yeas, that warming has huge impacts on oceanic life as warm layers on the top (stratification) and impairs the upwelling of nutrients in critical areas, which in turn reduces phytoplankton, the basic element of the oceanic food web.
Everything is interconnected. More than 59% of the oxygen we breath comes from phytoplankton.
I think you may be confusing aerosols with particulates .
@@andrewtrip8617 Please go read the definition of "aerosols".
finally a climate scientist who provides clear and concrete predictions based on evidence. James Hansen is the most reliable
There is no action. The emergency is here. We're doing nothing. Everyone will be screaming by next decade.
and most people will be saying, "How did this happen!? Who's responsible for this??!! it was never mentioned on "America's Got Talent"!!!!!!"
A mind is like a parachute. It does not work if it is not open.
Frank Zappa
What emergency is that then, exactly?
The one where policy change is being based on totally inaccurate climate computer models?
Who on earth would ever have thought that it would be almost impossible to model the earth's horrendously complex climate on a fooking computer!
Excellent presentation and video. Thank you for your work and sharing your knowledge.
If one (who is honest and rational) reverts to the 1750 CE baseline, then we are already well over +2.2C. Bye bye bipeds.
both Andrew Glikson and Leon Simon say we're above 2 degrees Celsius already minus the aerosol masking effect - as GEE McFearSun cites
Why 1750 in little ice age as metric
beginning or the industrial age - aka coal burning at scale @@DrSmooth2000
commonly understood as the beginning of the industrial age - aka coal burning at scale - and so-called little ice was extremely localizes to part of north America and not remotely global and also allegedly from 1300 to 1850@@DrSmooth2000
@@mark-b5p6h 1700 into 1800s were time European aristocratic Sciences marked glaciers (no walkie talked or signal flares no helicopter rescue. Insane guys to trapse about measuring) in NorthAm and Europe. Not many glaciers at all in antipode hemisphere... must be some in Chile Argentina as approach pole.
Also the start of systematic recorded measurements were same guys in NorthAm and Europe.
I'll have to find metric that shows 1750 was watershed in coal use. Wonder if century at that pace was required to end LiA a century later? Obviously overshot the mark in 1930s Warm Period.
What was the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking as he cut it down asks Jared Diamond in his book “Collapse”. Now we know.
Merci beaucoup.
I think James Hanson misspoke about the emissions, but he told the truth. He said to Leon that there was a clear increase in radiation since 2010, when the sulphur was decreased in 2020. But Jim Massa had made a comment on that graph and said that the increases were locked in since at least 1995. There should have been more discussion about Deep Ocean Heat, since this is probably the major driver.
Hanson also made an old comment about the energy contained in petroleum. But with our techniques of fracking and tarsanding, most of the energy in fossil fuels is used to get more fossil fuels, since it has become an energy intensive resource, and has bankrupted our economy and created this crisis.
I was disappointed that no one talked about the only carbon capture technique we have that could work today...global hemp and bamboo planting.
Look at my interview on Windyday Concept on the Environmental Coffeehouse.
Sounds like monoculture in temperate and subtropical regions.
@@ppetal1 it's a monoculture used for thousands of years. Pretty good track record if you ask me, and a hell of a lot better than plastic.
@@lawrencetaylor4101 not in a way that you have, probably unwittingly, prescribed.
About your CO2 capture, 2 things
1- you would need more cultivable land that is accessible (it's been calculated)
2- Pulling CO2 of the the atmosphere implies the CO2 in the ocean that causes ocean acidification, will also be drawn out. Gases in the air, like O2, CO2 are in a sort of pressure equilibrium state.
All the dissolved O2 used for life in the ocean comes from the O2 on the atmosphere. Fish can't extract O2 from H2O, the chemical bound is way too strong.
Thanks for posting this... We're at a critical juncture. While many of us have been saying this for decades, it's wake up time
Highly critical. Wake up.
Said critical juncture was several decades ago. We're way past that now. Too much inertia in the system. We're not going to change our ways anyway - it is to be business as usual, just as has been in that time since.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ We *can't* change our ways. There simply are no combination of changes that will save us from dying off without killing most of us currently alive. "Technology" has become the modern form of Alchemy; it's magical thinking and extremely ironic as it is our accelerated march towards technology that has brought our downfall.
What a load of shite!
You seriously think that co2 going from 0.0280% pre industrial revolution to 0.0420% currently constitutes a critical juncture.
You're off your nuts!
Time to wake up to that fact!
Seeing as human life expectancy grows larger the more technology we invent, it seems you are probably wrong.
Hansen called it a Faustian Bargain, but much of humanity doesn’t even receive benefits, so a bargain is really not accurate. It is more akin to assault. The major implication is the legitimacy of the current economic system, which distributes enormous gains to relatively few, by concealing and ignoring the incredible harms necessary for that growth.
This arrangement should be familiar to those of us who already abhor how economic models are used to guide and justify the reconfiguration of social reality for the benefit of the wealthiest. That climate scientists compromise their integrity by ignoring empirical evidence when it does not match integrated assessments models of climate change is disturbing, but perhaps not surprising. Unfortunately, the earth system will not prove as resilient and flexible as the human spirit. This time it is the economic model that will need to be changed, or it will be shattered when reality comes crashing down on it. Is that what we are waiting for?
The man with the hat calmly saying "Next Chart" several times - told you:
*"you're f**ed anyway* ::......without saying THAT literally
And we're all going to die!
Death is default.
You miss the point...
@@SJKM
Meanwhile, most people in my circle are still claiming global warming is a Chinese hoax.
You are so wrong; it's an American hoax
MEER?
MEER is an excellent idea but funding is needed and USA funding all going to wars wherever we can find them
@33:10 increase in solar photovoltaic deployment in the next decade exceeding the increase over the past three decades seems quite plausible to me: if you look at e.g. BNEF solar PV production statistics for the recent past. Production rate is doubling every 1 year to 18 months or so, and prices continue to fall. Total global cumulative installed capacity reached 1TW in early 2022. A further 0.4 TW was added in 2023 alone.
Thank you for sharing this discussion about the findings of the recent paper about global warming in the pipeline. It appears that we are not going to reduce fossil fuel combustion fast enough to have a meaningful impact on the Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI). Hansen stated that we need to cool the planet and there simply does not appear to be any alternative to some form of solar radiation management (SRM) in the short term while we tackle greenhouse gas emissions. I note that in the paper by Hansen et al. only two approaches to SRM are mentioned; stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. It would be good to have some critical discussion about other approaches to cooling the planet like Dr. Ye Tao's MEER project (using arrays of ground based mirrors to reflect sunlight). Any meaningful SRM is going to require global governance so the sooner we can launch a global approach to this challenge to cool the earth using SRM the better our chances of reducing EEI and saving the Earth's cooling systems (Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets). SRM and reduction in CO2 emissions have to be implemented hand in hand.
You ridiculously fixated on not running the meeting overtime, on extremely important news, you cut the meeting off when the media is trying to get the fullness of the message. Dumb.
Thank you.
We all need to get used to getting by with 95% less stuff.
No we don't, we have to embrace technological advances, like fission and fusion, and not do insane nonsense involving panels and turbines!
I can survive without 95% of what I’m used to. My Poor fellow humans in India, Africa, etc., not so much.
@@chrismullin8304 surviving without 95% of stuff woukd be the end of how our economic system works. What you going to replace free market capitalism with, that is a better model than what we've already got?
Bearing in mind that free market capitalism has hauled 100' of millions out of abject poverty!.
Also bearing in mind that the "elites" pushing this climate crisis claptrap also stand to gain huge amounts from toppling the current system.
Or is that just a conspiracy theory.... Did I dream the 3 trillion going up the chain during covid lockdowns, and the businesses failing and being bought up by the big boys!?
@@andrewcheadle948if you were diagnosed with lung cancer would you stop smoking?
@@VoytekBereza what's that got to do with anything?
If you were in a new religious cult, would you have the ability to see it, or would you simply be swept along engaging with virtue signalling nonsense?
Name me three things that constitute a religious cult, then apply that to the climate cult that you're part of.
You're suggesting with your ridiculous comment that there's a climate crisis with co2 at 0.0420%.... Nah nothing culty about that, right! 🤣
Wonderful. Seems like we are actively trying to reform Earth into Venus.
Intimate is nice.
As extreme as that might seem, it is conceivable what is there to stop runaway warming?
@@wmanadeau7860Yo,we need more doom phantasies to make climate change great again.
nice.
Yeah shame about those pesky satellites reporting a greening of the planet, because of slightly higher co2 levels!
Also a terrible shame that crop yields are up globally, partly because of slightly higher co2 levels too, I guess.
Were these facts mentioned in this video?
I doubt it.
Personally, I can't bring myself to listen to the climate cult nonsense!
@@wmanadeau7860the fact that co2 was between 6000-8000ppm back in the Cambrian period (which saw the biggest explosion of life the planet has ever seen),and we're currently at a gnats fart level of 420ppm,appears to gone over the top of your head!
Shipping Braces for Impact as Panama Canal Slashes Capacity - Climate Change???
Building wider locks for larger modern ships
Drought
Yes. The water is very low and few ships can get through. The lower Mississippi River is also having issues.
Time to allow debate, Mckitrick, Lindzen, Happer, Christy, Spencer , Pelke , Koonin and 100 more , some who have been appointed by the Ipcc.
Thank you to Dr Hansen and to Jeffrey Sachs for bringing this clear explanation to the public and the media. It’s up to all of us to push our governments to act rationally. We are out of time.
I don't mind 10 minutes after the hour, and I'm sure others wouldn't. Talk on unheralded saviours of the planet and civilisation.
Those that mind can drop by the wayside. Those that are in it for the long haul would die on this rock.
(Let's call that, 'literally')
So if I understand this correctly with a doubling of the energy imbalance (Solar Energy Received Vs Reflected) the energy imbalance will accelerate climate change 5x relative to the burning of Fossil Fuels in the comparative period. If that is correct shouldn't we concentrates all efforts on the energy imbalance and Fossils Fuels are just a part of that equation. We must surely replace the missing harmful aerosols ( like Sulphur that were helping with the energy imbalance) with less harmful aerosols or massive amounts of solar reflectors place on every practical.
If we want to get back to the linear and relatively slow climate change we were experiencing in 2001, we need to put the earth back to where it was in 2001. That means unpaving the roads, refreezing the ice we lost, putting forests back that we bulldozed.......
@@anabolicamaranth7140 It isn't going to happen, so brace for impact , I think
@@mrpaul5726 What's even more hilarious, is it's not like brace for impact for a short while as we wait for it to blow over, but brace for, and endure impact forever, because the situation simply isn't going to go away in any time span relevant to human lives.
Cant argue with that my friend@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ
@@mrpaul5726 I don't think there will be an impact, but rather a long, slow and painful decline (which has already begun).
My God this is such eye awakening Future for all living on our planet let alone our Childrens future! We must take Hold and prepare for challenging times but also a better reason to bring sustainable communities even more empowering togetherness 🕊🌳🌏❤️
Gibberish
It's probably what's going to happen anyway. In time production will fall-back to local with people realising they need each other again.
If you believe that there's an issue with the climate because co2 has gone from 0.0280% pre industrial revolution to 0.0420% currently, for a single solitary second, them perhaps may I suggest you go see a psychiatrist?
@@andrewcheadle948 You are repeatedly trolling and you think someone else needs a psychiatrist.
@@everythingmatters6308 well what's not to enjoy by trolling you lot.
You make it so easy for me to destroy your doom and gloom views!
Maybe I should just let you carry on terrifying kids that they have no future!?
There is so much complexity here; for example AI systems dividing humanity into online echo chambers is a factor that leads to a large percentage of the population having a better or worse picture of things than reality, and this will affect voting. Billions of variables feed into the climate system and many we will be utterly unaware of . At this point I am coming to terms with the optimistic viewpoint being; that we get machine intelligence standing on it's own 2 feet before we terraform Earth to suit bacteria only.
It reminds me of a doctor giving a patient a terminal diagnosis, but in this case it is not about one person, but about the whole of humanity and nature. Humanity's destiny will thus be fulfilled in the coming decades. Nothing will be the same.
This documentary should have been made into a prime time TV programme, but it won't be, because then today's powerful and extremely wealthy might fear that the ensuing riots will lead them to the same fate as Mussolini. But it will happen eventually anyway, just later.
I wish it would be longer. They're duscussing very important topics concerning the whole planet, but host is always rushing them due to the lack of time.
Amazing insights and research. Lots to look ahead with the 1.5 degree and 2 degrees target being at risk.
At risk? Did you listen to the presentation? They are toast. The world is not going to respond. The latest climate summit is in Oil City.
@@ravenkenmay I be so bold as to suggest that their scaremongering is bollocks
@@ravenken Presentation is Full of Shyte! CO2 is not the temperature control!
CO2 has been proven that it rises to the edge of the air envelope of Earth, and sends a lot of RED light off into deep space!
1: The Sun is not getting any hotter since CO2 levels of the dino era!
2: The Earth is recovering from an Ice age!
3: The only threat to life in the trapped methane. (And that can be fixed by harvesting, and burning it!)
4: We need more CO2 to make plants grow faster, to feed the Billions of people in this world!
I have no way of gauging your intelligence Mr Cheadle, but to describe the contents of this presentation in the way you do, I find breathtaking. You are a fine example of why humanity, comprising the most intelligent species on Earth, will destroy themselves like Lemmings.
@@andrewcheadle948 yeah you can suggest it, and then we can all dismiss your claim as being totally devoid of evidence that it is lol. What do you expect people to take you at your word and just assume you're right? Is this grade 3?
How great to see that Songnae High School offers a unique and transformative learning experience for students. Songnae is immersing students in a holistic curriculum that not only imparts academic knowledge but also instills a profound sense of environmental consciousness. This distinctive approach encourages critical thinking, problem-solving, and a strong sense of responsibility for the environment!
It is unfortunate for the world that the mainstream media bothers with Michael Mann and Zeke Hausfather. Wish Hansen would call out these creeps.
Why?
Fall-out shelters were in demand after the horrors of the atomic bomb in 1945. During the paranoia that followed, there were instructions put out by the gov. on building all kinds of shelters even in an emergency. Old science magazines have very creative ideas. Underground or underwater is our future habitat if mankind tries to survive. The whole family can dig, and use the dirt to berm up around the house. Life can adapt IF we start now in a direction of adaptation. Drinking water is the key to survival. This will be humanity's most challenging adventure yet. Best of luck to everyone, remember the Golden Rule, and never dig where the seas are apt to rise.
The key to survival will be temperatures & humidity to which our bodies are adapted. Once we move beyond that range....good luck.
It seems geoengineering, once called the option of last resort due to inherent risks, is our only option left. In the meantime I hope we can bring those responsible for the denial movement to justice.
Our only option left! 😂
You don't seriously believe this nonsense do you!
This simplest option is to inform people of the risk and rapidly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. No point geoengineering while we continue to allow fossil fuels to force warming.
@@mpecresidentinform people! That's all the "elites" pushing this shite, have done over the last couple of decades.
We're not going to rapidly reduce fossil fuels are we.
Particularly China and India!
Maybe you should rapidly reduce your use of your fossil fuel created and powered electronic device, and cease going on youtube whose energy consumption has gone up year on year, if you're that concerned about it!
Would be interesting to hear the many opposing views from top physicists and mathematicians rather than scientists from the CO2 club. Please consider cui bono.
Don't worry, those that are loudest now in their climate change denial, are auditioning on the internet now for a vengeful future, who will be casting around for the role of scapegoat. There will be plenty of choices for roles that may seem a bit medieval today.
Intriguing. The concept of energy imbalance is indeed central to understanding climate change, as it directly influences the warming of the atmosphere and oceans. However, the complexity of feedback loops such as those involving cloud cover, ice-albedo, and carbon cycle dynamics-along with the resilience and adaptability of ecosystems adds significant uncertainty to predictions. There is a climate crisis threatening the sixth great extinction but the rate of that looming catastrophe is a little unclear
Cop28 ->>> CopOUT 28 more like it.
my thoughts exactly
COP= "Cretins Obstinately Procrastinating"
Is that where all the world's "elites" fly in on their private jets, then agree that the oceans are boiling, before arranging more theft of our money, before flying back to their mansions!?
Yeah that will be it.
28 years ago JH gave us a warring and we didn't listen. We better listen to what he's telling us now. We don't have 28 more years to waste.
Do you believe the same con artists who told you the Arctic Ocean would become ice free years ago and it never happened?
the increasing gravitation towards geo engineering makes me really uneasy. it should be treated as a begrudgingly applied last ditch effort, rather than anything we should look towards in excitement/anticipation. we would practically have to geongineer forever, unless we want to re-create Venus
while i agree with you we have been actively geo-enginerring since the 50s but with a steady increase dramatically in 2015 i believe
@@AineTheAnamCara "i believe" Well I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows.
@@grindupBaker lolol Who are you pretending to be ? Confucius? Was that piss poor attempt at smart ass but weak minded philosophy, supposed to be and insult ?
@@grindupBaker oh hunny lol it’s absolutely been happening (documented by the gov all you have to do is not be lazy and look in the archives and you’ll find it) since the 50’s I just wasn’t 100% sure which year in the 50’s which it started. But good job on the arrogance-intelligence petty a$$ comment
I thought that this panel would contain leading Climate Scientists, where is Dr Stephen Koonin??
the emphasis is on the word LEADING. your Climate Scientist is Unsettled, that is not leading.
@@climatebreak I disagree. In fact Dr Stephen Koonin was once among US President' Barack Obama's leading scientific staff.
@@MarathonSimmowell with that info I definitely would not consider him as a leading climate scientist
@@MarathonSimmo He's a theoretical physicist who worked for bp then was an undersecraty, not a leading scientist by any means.
This is great. But science guys suck at debate. Say, “we’re out of time and options. Aerosols are all we’ve got at this point…[ad homonyms omitted].” Do NOT say, “…one stupid action begets another! We’re already doing climate engineering by accident.” 🙄 The latter is surely a more satisfying implied insult, but it leaves the opposition too much rope. We have no more time for witty remarks.
if developing nations are not going to wean off of fossil fuels (sure, what right do developed nations who gained their status through fossil fuel infrastructure have to deny them the same), then developed nations (the UNITED STATES), need to take accountability and do everything in their power to accelerate the renewable transition ten-fold. not through magical technologies like CCUS, DAC, and BECCS; but existing and proven technology.
we are absolutely screwed if these oil conglomerates retain the lobbying power they currently have. if 1.5 is truly dead, we are presiding in the most important moment of time in human history. this is quite literally the most definitive moment in the trajectory of all life on earth.
13:00 warming will accelerate.
2023 hottest year on record and 2024 hotter yet. Prophetic
Ross Mckitrick, where are you? models here models there models everywhere ,
They get it wrong as error bars are so wide they cover all of the temperature increase since 1880. they can’t compute cloud cover in 100 kilometres squares but requires 10km squares, as clouds are so fleeting would have to be x 10 000 more computer data
So what I am hearing is that the model's previously used may have error factors because of the lack of aerosols. Now you are saying aerosols are a cause primarily from shipping? What about volcanoes. Science is about data. How come all charts are covering just 20 years some being 60 years. Come on guys. What are going to blame next to try and justify an incorrect thesis
I wish they went more into IMO regulations; the implication being GHG emissions need to be coupled with sulfur emissions decreases, and follow the same, rapid rate; people can't be allowed to misunderstand the data and come to the conclusion that sulfur emissions are actually good and aerosols will save us all.
What we need is a proposal that smoothly facilitates the transition from fossil fuels to other alternatives. You cannot just all of a sudden raise the cost of fossil fuels when there is no plan or viable options for transition to less polluting options. If the climate intelligentsia doesn’t start coming up with a feasible plan, it will continue to be labeled as climate alarmists and as the men and women who cry wolf.
If things are as dire as you claim, why isn’t there a huge campaign for nuclear energy? If you are a climate scientist that must be part of your agenda as it is the only viable technology we have today that is not carbon emitting. Windmills and solar panels are not viable as wide ranging power replacements. Again, without suggesting viable energy replacements for fossil fuels you will not be taken seriously by the majority public. People are not stupid and will do their research if pushed economically. Anyone doing their research knows that the idea of electric cars as a 100% replacement for fossil fuel powered cars is a farce and could be called a scam when the mining required is morally criminal and the fact that 70% of power plants are fossil fuel based and would have to be greatly expanded to accommodate the additional charging requirements created by so many EV’s.
Solar & wind electricity to split water into hydrogen.
"Why isn't there a big campaign for nuclear energy?" Because of NIMBYs. Fears of another Chernobyl or Fukushima and the massive expense of getting a new nuclear plant up to speed are the two main stumbling blocks.
"Windmills and solar panels are not viable as wide ranging power replacements. " A joint study by the University of California at Berkeley, with contributions from Caltech, the Carnegie Institution of Science and Tshinghua University in China disagree. According to their assessments, industrialized countries can reliably tap 80-90% of their power from wind, solar and battery back-up alone and can do so without raising consumer bills.
"Electric cars are a farce."
The electricity required to drive 15,000 miles per year in a compact electric vehicle costs an average of $546, while the amount of gas required to drive the same distance costs $1,255 (or 130%) more in an equivalent size gas car, according to AAA. (See TRUE COST of ELECTRIC VEHICLES)
Electric cars cost $330 per year less in maintenance, according to AAA, or $3300 less over ten years.
The average owner can save up to $6000 over an EV's lifespan, according to Consumer Reports.
According to Autoinsurance EZ, using figures from the National Transportation Safety Board, EVs are 10 times LESS LIKELY to experience a fire than a gasoline car.
EVs' rollover rate is significantly lower than gasoline cars, due to the heavy battery's low center of gravity. It's part of the reason EVs have a 40% LESS death and injury rate than equivalent gasoline cars.
EVs front end crash test results place them with the very safest luxury gasoline cars.
Tax credits up to $7500.
EVs have instant torque, allowing you to get onto the highway far quicker than an equivalent gas car.
EVs cost more upfront but save money in the long run. However, EVs should reach price parity with gas cars as the industry continues to scale up. In China, EVs are already cheaper than gasoline cars.
LEVELIZED COST OF BUILDING AND RUNNING A NEW POWER PLANT IN DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT HOUR
SOLAR: $60
WIND: $50
GAS: $70
COAL: $117
NUCLEAR: $180
2023 FIGURES BY LAZARD
The naysayers take appears to be captain of Titanic arguing about what time the ship will hit the iceberg. Hansen's take is let's grab the helm and redirect the ship ASAP
Glow Bull Warning, Im Fuckin Freezin Here, You Lot Are Mad!!!
Reversible direct air capture is expensive and inefficient. Enhanced weathering of olivines could capture CO2 emissions for about a trillion dollars, less than one-fifth of what David Keith is proposing. There is a growing literature on enhanced weathering.
Humanity has never needed to be united so much for the same purpose, but the international situation is terrible and does not favor cooperation between countries to try to stop the worst scenarios of global warming. It's like a game of chess where we already know who will win many moves before the end.
No, no, not “Global Warming” but “Climate Change “ … 😂😂😂❤
sometimes nature creates ecocidal animals
we're the first with our co2 emissions 100 times faster than any time on Earth in the past 500 million years - and we could easily cause "biological annihilation" - so Nature will have to start over - maybe in another 500 million years.
I think nature only created one animal to fill that criteria....
I'd argue all life acts the same when not kept in check.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ seems likely, but some creatures have more symbiotic traits than parasitic
@@ceeemm1901 yeah we are on another level, some species overpopulate and deplete their own food supplies and pollute it like we do: locusts, wolves, elephants, goats, rabbits, pigs... but none of those threaten all life on earth like we do with nukes & pollution
Where is the scientific literature that demonstrates what the right temperature for Earth is?
Where is the scientific literature that demonstrates the optimal CO2 levels ?
All global climate models exaggerated the temperature rise by 2 -3X. Satellite and weather balloon observations proved that only the most conservative models (Russian NM5) made more faithful predictions.
The temperatures were higher than today during Holocene optimum, the Bronze Roman and Medieval warming periods.
There was no anthropogenic CO2 back then therefore CO2 is not the sole driver of temperature.
Water vapor is contributing 70% to the Greenhouse phenomenon.
Doubling CO2 will only decrease the flux of outgoing radiation by 1%.
CO2 is a critical nutrition for plants, forests and food crops which now grow more efficiently greening the Earth and increasing food production.
Spending 100s of Trillions to reduce CO2 emissions in the West (30%) while allowing the rest of the emitters continue contributing 70% of the CO2 is the mathematical definition of insane stupidity.
:what the right temperature for Earth". Obviously, a temperature CHANGE that wipes out most Life on Earth is pretty darn good but a temperature CHANGE that ONLY wipes out all
@drTAMU-Ts on Earth and leaves all other Life all happy & smiling is PERFECT. This is so obvious that the question is unnecessary.
Thanks for this
Forests proceeds civilisation, deserts follow. Of all the lands we see in flood the waters are carrying away topsoil and soil nutrients. We as a species have had 10,000 years of relative weather stability. The overshoot of the world's carrying capacity has been breached and we the wealth aquisition addicts are stealing from tomorrow to live high on that lucre as proof of our being. I am reminded of a baby and his (operative) pacifier. Meanwhile countries made poor by capitalisms excesses have to feel the desperate and oppressive weight that inequality and hypocracy brings.
Thanks for offering further evidence that this has never been about the environment and is simply another anti capitalist movement in the guise of saving the planet.
No country on this planet has ever been "made poor by capitalisms excesses". And what is your solution to a world of plenty, depravation of course.
I noticed a number of stark differences between data from Northern and Southern Hemispheres'.
I am very interested in understanding the implications of these differences going forward. I live on 45 degrees South so I feel my experience of climate changes is very different from people living north of the equator.
Have at it people. I look forward to any insights this community may provide.
Speaking from 43° north. Not much has changed over the last 30 years. We still have all four seasons. Nothing in our area has gone extinct, though there are a few invasive species, like stink bugs and mustard grass.
Come to think about it, we just had snow on Halloween, great Lakes area. That's only happened once before in the last 20 years, if not more.
I live near 40 °N. Falls and winters have the most noticeable changes here.
I'll stick to winters... We get much less snow and extreme cold. 30+ years ago, we would get a solid 3 weeks of -40°Cs and it was generally colder. We seldom go down to -30°C and only for short periods, no more than a week. Less snow probably has to do with changes in wind patterns. The big snowstorms seldom make it here, and we often get rain in the winter since 2012 or so. It seems to be a lot more cloudy, but this area is one that gets most average precipitation in Canada. Some say it has to do with all the hydro dams up here. Could be... Oh, and they also do cloud seeding to keep water levels up in those dams. They's been doing it since the 60's according to news outlets. ✌
P.S. The Arctic circle is now warming 4 times faster than global average.I think that may explain a lot of what's going on around there. It begins only 6° North of here.
@@kayakMike1000I don’t know we’re your at but here in Kentucky right now in the middle of November it’s 65 degrees at night this is not normal at all
The graph shown at 4mins provides sufficient info to blow the debate wide open - now class, what really causes CO2 levels to rise and fall!
A recent paper confirms this on a shorter timescale
No it doesn't. "@michaelharrison9340" == Babbler of total drivel of the highest order == Some bod with ZERO interest in this science who never studied ANY of it == a totally dishonest creature of the highest order.
Save Our Planet Now
When will someone really radical advocate for adding aerosols to our atmosphere via nuclear winter?
Could arguably produce a better result than our current trajectory.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ you people are insane
If we did nothing beyond Paris, nothing, then race between plants taking in the co2 vs their darkening albedo
If albedo wins out before Y3K and start Hothouse cycle we get Miocene. Planetary jungle.
That's worst case. A lot more rain forest
You'd nuke us instead
If the models don´t correspond with the data, adjust the data. And you will get more funding.
haha , i have seen the biggest rainstorm today. Do you still believe climate change is a scam?
Interesting that James thinks Michael Mann has got it wrong.
@jjsr7861 The future is one of the most trickiest times to make predictions about. I avoid it like the plague myself.
@jjsr7861 "If CC is a true science, it should be able to predict accurately the future" == senseless drivel.
Perhaps controlling the sulfur content of bunker fuel could have happened earlier.
Yeah, but profits.
That and a massive distribution of Condoms
Unlees he' delivering this message to India and Chima this is a waste of time.
"The most important "tipping point"..." is the worldwide global ice melt: 1,200,000,000,000,000 (1.2 trillion) tons of melting ice annually. Hansen is just another "expert" to be taken with a gram of ice. A volcanic eruption may have a slight cooling effect, but it's the 8 B tons of coal annually, and the 100 M barrels of oil we burn a day that are producing the heat, with a secondary contribution from "the greenhouse effect".
wot a lot of crap if i remember before year 2 thousond we in australia we were all told we going to run out of oil and we need to go bi o fule and run our cars on gas and use cooking gas in our houses / then wen the year 2000 came around if i remember we were told the world was going to end all our computers and atms would stop plains were going to fall out of the sky / then we were told we were going to die of thurst so our goverment spent a fourtune on a de sall plant turning salt water into fresh never been used because all our dams are so full of drinking water so that means climate change fill all our dams up with drinking water / wear i live lake elden the so called experts said that because of climate change no one will ever see the dam full in our life time well well climate change must of fixed that because its so full few months ago they had to realese water down the spill way it was that full and all theese so called experts just want to scare every one into voting green / if all theese experts so worried they should stop driving a car stop usinging there lap tops phones flying watching tv no fire works on new years eve no bbqs give up any kind of smoking stop all kind of fule reduction burns stop building high rises in the city theses climate experts are all about scaring every one no one knows wot going to happen in 50 years time
None of the dire predictions of the past came true, my friend, because we took pre-emptive action to stop them from happening. Innovations in drilling, deep-sea drilling and fracking have brought us more oil and gas. The world also spent billions on mitigating the Y2K disaster BEFORE IT HAPPENED. (And nobody in science said the world would end, by the way; that's your own hyperbole.). While you may have adequate water now, you may not in the future. Many places in the world have suffered devastating droughts, and these are increasing in intensity and duration, according to the IPCC.
Back in the 1960s, America had some of the worst air pollution in the world. Millions needlessly suffered from lung and heart disease and premature deaths. There were dire predictions of even more premature deaths in the future. The pollution was so bad it actually dimmed the sun, which dropped global temperature slightly.
Although big industry fought it tooth and nail, we acted on the dire predictions of the day and passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, one of the most powerful pieces of legislation ever created in the U.S. By the end of the decade, the skies cleared, and we ended up saving an estimated $22 trillion in health care costs, according to estimates by the EPA.
Dire predictions averted. BECAUSE WE ACTED.
As a physicist, this seems very worrying to me, but not unexpected. I always thought that the particulates were a big effect that we had to worry about. This presentation is quite persuasive. It could be a little pessimistic but that's what I would use to protect ourselves. I have to ask, if particulates are a big effect, shouldn't we consider putting "safe" particulates into the atmosphere to replace the sulphur we are reducing, at least as a temporary measure. It seems like an emergency.
I just heard the end of the question session and see that you are also saying we need to reflect some sunlight.
Well, IPCC AR5 2013 had -1.41 w/m**2 of aerosol forcing and the total warming forcing is 4.1 w/m**2 so -1.4 w/m**2 certainly wasn't chump change at 34% of GHG forcing masked. The scientific consensus NEVER DID state that aerosol masking was chump change. The IPCC AR reports had like the -1.4 I mentioned and Jim says it's almost certainly 1.5 to 2.0 instead so it's ALWAYS BEEN a non-negligible but moderate "disagreement" (uncertainty).
We need more fossil fuels not less. Energy is everything. There is a direct correlation between energy poverty and economic poverty.
2:52 what is blatantly obvious CO2 rises and falls as a reflex of temp. Check Tierney's 31/12/2013 trip on the MV Shokalskiy...hilarious.!
Fabricland sell bolts of fabric for reasonable prices. Could we not cover the Antarctic glaciers with fabric the same way that Europeans are covering their mountain glacier ranges?
Just asking?
Waiting to see Hansen as a guest to TGS.
_The Great Simplification_ (I assume, for anyone wondering)
Thanks. I would have just said Nate Hagens! @@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ
Lots of data. For myself the slides data often came & went too fast to absorb the detail, whilst trying to follow the spoken narrative at the same time. Maybe cognitive decline, but had to use the pause button!
The presentation clearly makes its case for global warming termination shock from reducing atmospheric sulfur emissions, with its consequent reduction in global cooling effects. The Hunga Tora eruption didn't help by ejecting more greenhouse gases into the stratosphere in the form of water vapor.
Why can't we rapidly offset this loss of sulfur aerosol cooling effect by fast-tracking "marine cloud brightening" (MCB) specialist seagoing vessels (perhaps defunct oil rigs too)? Such injection of non-toxic salt spray (at the right particles size) into low level cumulus cloud does not have the possible unintended consequences of injecting sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere.
Too little too late is no antidote to faster than expected.
“An Objective Bayesian Improved Approach for Applying Optimal Fingerprint Techniques to Estimate Climate Sensitivity.” by Nic Lewis gives an ECS between 1.2 and 2.2 degrees C with a best estimate of 1.6C. Hanson claims 4.8C ECS but he doesnt disclose where he got the values for his forcings; GHG forcing of 2.25 Wm2 for a change of 100ppm ? where does the albedo forcing figure come from ?
Hansen using the language of the masses and expedience - '' ...it's a BFD - a Big Fucking Deal! '' Excellent.
The bottom line: fossil fuel energy is about to get a whole lot more expensive. If you haven't been paying attention, and are dependent on fossil fuel energy for your lifestyle and your investment returns, your lifestyle is about to take a digger. And if you think this is nonsense, consider that even Republicans at this point are thinking about a carbon border adjustment tariff, which is one step away from a universal carbon tax, which our trading partners will insist on, once the tariffs come into effect.
Sorry Professor Sachs, the worlds leading scientists were not included in this discussion.
Positive forcing very often small in comparison to negative forcing, assumptions have no use in science.
2:38
the climate on our remarkable home planet is characterized by delayed response and amplifying
feedbacks
we doomed
Looking that way, we're in for radical times at the very least, the Great Waves of Change are here.
The coral reefs certainly are. "We" doesn't exist.
Thank you
Dear Jim Hansen, you showed the graph coming from ice core data that documents clearly the well known fact that CO2 FOLLOWS TEMPERATURE CHANGE. But why don’t you mention and explain this fact. Why do you expect all people all of the time to „believe“ that „we have to cool the planet“? The hubris that goes along with this absurd demand is breathtaking. BTW the melting of the West Antarctic ice shield - when it occurs - will happen because of the volcanoes underneath and not because of burning „fossil“ fuels in the northern hemisphere.
You've been duped by cherry picking. Earth's orbit around the sun is not fixed. It varies in its distance from the sun (eccentricity), the angle of the earth's rotation (obliquity)and the earth's wobble (precession). You can google "the Milankovitch cycles" for more info. Isn't science fascinating? The Milankovitch cycles drive the ice ages but his takes thousands of years and their effect is too weak to cause the shifts between glacials and interglacials on their own. Ice cores show us quite clearly that as orbital changes start the warm up phase after an ice age, ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. Of course many prominent "deniers " try to cherry pick this information and claim CO2 follows temperature change and thus cannot be a driver but the science is clear.
"melting of the West Antarctic ice shield - when it occurs - will happen because of the volcanoes underneath" == Breathtakingly ignorant total rubbish merely Parroted by an entity with a brain equalling that of a parrot.
@@hosnimubarak8869 Today's CO2 is LEADING temperature rise, not the other way around. We needed no help from Milankovitch Cycles to initiate warming as the earth did in the past.
@jjsr7861 logically ... You end up with a perpetual motion machine!" == Totally wrong & foolishly ignorant.
@jjsr7861 As I correctly stated before your "you would have a circular causation/effect relationship - temperature cause rising CO2, rising CO2 causes temperature to rise! You end up with a perpetual motion machine!" is incorrect drivel.
Why is all the anti-fossil fuel effort focussed on the West. Why is Stop Oil demonstrating here. Why oil. Germany does not seem to have gotten the message and is now burning more lignite coal rather than relatively clean Russian natural gas. But Europe is not so important in the grand scheme of burning things as the key burners of fossil fuels are in Asia. Anything the the USA or Europe does now pales into insignificance. Irrespective of the questionable CO2 science, I suspect this whole AGW religion was started as an exercise to retain our dominant economic position and benefit some second rate academic careers.
So thousands of PhD-level climate scientists around the world have all been in cahoots with over 2500 scientific institutions from around the world to publish the over 350,000 climate studies in existence just to benefit someone's second-rate academic career?
Well, goodbye, that was fun when that lasted. I'm 40, I was thinking not so far ago that I could reach 60 without too much disturbance. Now, I can't even figure another quiet 10 years, before very serious consequences of nascent geopolitical instability (food production , regional conflits, etc) occur and reverberate even in western economies. There is already a lot of weak noise socially speaking when we are just maintaining a 0-0.5% growth ; I bet this will unravel rather quickly.
I'm French and work in building engeneering. Our thermal building code is touted as the most advanced in Europe (well if you discount the passivehaus approach), and yet it is so out of pace and touch with this reality... We are very strongly incited not to actively cool out new buildings, and yet everybody is rushing to erect wooden buildings with no termal inertia. We already see the limit of this in schools, colleges, etc when we have heatwaves in june and september. All new individual dwellings in 2030 should be build mainly with wood. That's insane and depressing to daily see that most of our clients and the architects have no clue. Well, they begin to understand. I heard an architect say one month ago "I don't know what to do anymore".
Great comment.
Why not mandate the burning of high sulfur bunker fuels, when ships are not near a coast, and get that aerosol effect working for us again? It's a delaying tactic, and one with costs, but not costs as high as direct CO2 extraction, and certainly not 115 to 230 trillion dollars.
The Sulfur rains down to acidity ocean before it hits land?
Cool Worlds channel has a great CDR video with excellent presentation and a range of assumptions to the most optimistic
Interesting! The decrease in cooling from aerosols are many times bigger than the "insulation" from increased CO2? Did I understand that correctly? 1W/m2 vs 0.03W/m2? Whats the solar influx? 3.5W/m2? If I understood this correctly, we should refocus from CO2 to albedo, right? Cool the planet! Dim the atmosphere! Geoenginering! This is new understanding for me.
That is thrust of the field yes.
The goal is 1880 temperature recordings. Effect of centuries of acid rain on biosphere is irrelevant to that goal.
A simple laywoman question. Why not put the sulphur/aerosols back?
Because then we have an air quality issue and more premature deaths from heart and lung diseases. Aerosol pollution is why we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970.
Hansen says: "And we'll soon find out.. that we have an acceleration in the global warming rate.". Sure enough, 15 days after this presentation the global temperature exceeded 2 degrees of warming over preindustrial for the first time.
Did anybody die?
Brings to mind Hansen's mid-range predictions turned out to be spot on; he was only claimed to make "silly dire predictions" by political media. Easy to find, check it out. In one case he was asked, off the cuff, what would happen if CO2 were suddenly to double which is a ridiculous counterfactual. But somehow the substance of the question is always omitted from accounts of his answer.
No lack of high-impact science journals that show how much Mann's and Hansen's findings have been corroborated and aren't even controversial now.
We still see to this day political activists telling us Mann and Hansen are conmen and how the anti-science right-wing has made them bogeymen. Same old same old from them misrepresenting their achievements and turning them into strawmen.
No, actually not. It is a failure of measurement.
@@oller7113 If you could refute that November 17, 2023 was the first day in which the global temperature exceeded 2°C above pre-industrial levels, you will be the next rock star of applied physics.
You can't refute that the weather balloons, weather stations, radars, ships and Argo floats, and satellites have been used improperly to measure. You can't demonstrate a failure of measurement.
@@rps1689 I have been listening to several scientists who all have in common the notion that the measurements are flawed because more and none of them are done in a hot environment like city centres which of course are being more and more relevant in these regards. I have no wish to be a rock star (if it doesn´t include groupies of course, lol ).
Seems to me the chart at 5.08 indicates temperature moved ahead of CO2 and declined before CO2. The current Holocene doesn't really look any different to the Eemian. Seen longer term charts like this and it does seem a cyclical rise and fall is a thing. Then at 48.15 the global energy added to the system is 60 times greater than total global energy consumption. Surely that means our energy production has a minimal effect? With Russia attacking Ukraine, China threatening all and sundry the chances of global co-operation is minimal. I hope fusion power comes into reality because no way are people going to want to live with less power.
A joint study by UC Berkeley, Caltech, the Carnegie Institution of Science and Tsinghua University in China finds that industrialized nations can power themselves 85-90% of the time with a combination of wind, solar and battery back-up and can do so cheaper than with fossil fuels. I'm not sure why you believe we'd all have to do with less power.
The Milankovitch Cycles that initiated our interglacial period are all in COOLING phases now, and we should, in fact, be cooling ever so slightly, not warming.
Interesting but it is developing countries that are going to need a lot more power and there is only so much production of solar panels and wind turbines. Despite all the pros for renewables we still find lots of coal power plants being chosen (I think China is adding 43)? By the way I have solar panels and in winter they are pretty negligible for power production. I estimate it is about a 11 year payback financially. So considering the CO2 involved in manufacture longevity is very important - and that is a key factor with renewables - how long will they last? How well are they built? I take your point re Milankovitch but perhaps the cooling has been delayed due to our emissions - but that doesn't mean cooling will not occur?
@@rovert1284 I'm sure you know all this already, but for those who don't, rooftop solar and solar farms are two different beasts entirely. Solar farms are located for maximum solar exposure. Rooftop solar may or may not be situated in such plum locations. Solar panels offset the CO2 produced in their manufacture within 2 years. Solar panels are guaranteed to last 20 years but most last longer than that, although with slight degradations of performance over time.
Milankovitch cooling without our emissions would have been on par with about a tenth of a degree every century, so that isn't something that we need to worry about. And with our emissions, a new reglaciation isn't going to happen for tens of thousands of years. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
An onslaught of info! Thank you for all this.
There are a significant number of holes in the arguments presented. The most glaring is trying to use aerosol effect on climate...as he points out, this is extremely complex, chaotic, and almost impossible to predict, hence the reason that most models don't match real world data. "We are all in the same boat, and if we don't work together, we will all sink together." We will only sink together if the boat is sinking, and there is no evidence of that in anything he presents...and a 12 month average is not climate...as the anthropogenic climate change cult member like to say, it is weather...not worth the time to watch it.
in summary, it took a team 7-years to 'Fix" the hockey stick that wasn't really broken. i guess the orinal team just got lucky! 😊 Or "The Fix" is in. Good model or bad model you get a hockey stick! You decide.
Concise and to the point.